Misinformation is part of the DNA of our social media platforms; why is that, and can anything be done about it?
Have you ever considered the seemingly cyclical nature of social media platforms? Most social media platforms since Facebook launched publicly in 2006 have followed a similar path where in the early stages the platform is focused on letting users interact with their real life friends through the platform which attracts the youth and early adopters who recommend the platform to a wider audience. As the platform grows in users though, people start expanding their accounts to reach further than their circle of friends leading to a large number of aspiring influencers. A cultural form of natural selection ensues and the influencer space on the platform starts to consolidate to a lesser number of bigger influencers. Around this time the company behind the platform decides to push the user experience away from a linear feed sorted by time of posting with the majority of posts from users you’ve decided to follow to a more opaque feed where some form of machine learning algorithm recommends posts it thinks you’ll like. I've discussed previously how social media algorithms contribute to a deteriorating debate climate in society through changing memes, if you're interested in that you can read that post here. After the change to an algorithm focus the platform becomes less personal, less about you and your friends and more about recommending posts designed to maximise ‘engagement’, a term meaning time spent on the platform and numbers of likes or comments.
The move from a platform centred on maximising engagement instead of one centred on letting users connect and interact with their friends has several important effects. Increasing engagement leads to an increase in ad revenue for the platform but also allows highly incendiary posts to spread faster and further than is possible in traditional media. While social media platforms have started to take more responsibility for the fake news and extremist propaganda their platforms enable the spread of, their platforms would have to be fundamentally changed in order to have a chance at stopping misinformation. A platform where one can anonymously post whatever one wants, where posts are checked for offensive language and opinions after publication and which doesn’t charge the users upfront for using the platform is a combination where the moderators are perpetually a step behind those seeking to use the platform to spread disinformation. Social media platforms frequently suspends and shuts down accounts, but they can’t ban individuals which means that a removed account is an inconvenience more than anything; after all it’s not like it costs anything to simply create a new account.
I dislike reductive arguments about how the eternal quest for greater profits is the root of all of society’s problems; reality is always more complex and requires more nuanced solutions. In this case though, I can’t help but feel that the switch from focusing on letting people connect with and interact with their real life friends and family to focusing on letting an algorithm recommend posts which are likely to make users spend more time on the platform leads to higher ad revenues for the platform while only resulting in externalities for users. Perhaps the best solution to the fake news epidemic is to have either the states or a non-profit run social media platforms with a mandate to create spaces for people to connect and have constructive debates. Time will tell whether the increasing pressure on social media platforms will lead to a new way of managing social media or if the current cycle continues.
If you found this post interesting please share it with a friend or coworker and come back next week for another one, if you want to read more you can read a previous post about economics here, and you can read all my posts about politics here.
Written by Karl Johansson
コメント